Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> So, the plan is to add this now with non-standard semantics and then
> change the semantics later if and when we implement what the standard
> requires? That's not something we usually do, and I don't see why
> it's a better idea in this case than it is in general. It's OK to
> have non-standard behavior with non-standard syntax, but I think
> non-standard behavior with standard syntax is something we want to try
> hard to avoid.
> I'm in favor of rejecting this patch in its entirety. The
> functionality looks useful, but once you remove the syntax support, it
> could just as easily be distributed as a contrib module rather than in
> core.
+1 ... if we're going to provide nonstandard behavior, it should be with
a different syntax. Also, with a contrib module we could keep on
providing the nonstandard behavior for people who still need it, even
after implementing the standard properly.
regards, tom lane
